tv [untitled] June 15, 2014 10:30am-11:01am PDT
>> so, what we do is we really emphasize that when you're developing, your development skills -- a cooking class can teach math skills. a volleyball game can teach english language skills. so, the emphasis really is on how do we -- how do we create environments where students have opportunities to develop their minds and their thinking skills, their problem solving skills. we can do that in a lot of enrichment activities. so, that's where we're really looking at how there is co-
herence. >> thank you. supervisor mar in >> kevin trueth mentioned of the tollal excel funding there is [speaker not understood] funding in dcyf matching funds. i'm wondering if the children's amendment is strongly supported by the voters in november, how much additional funds might come in and if it goes up to 4 cents per $100 of assessed value, you know what that dcyf matching funds -- how much it would increase? >> well,, number one, if it doesn't increase up to 4 cents at that point i think the estimate is somewhere to the tunes of 14 to $15 million. dcyf funds, a number of different programs ranging from child care to afterschool to teen violence prevention and eventually youth programs. we will have to go through a
youth assessment as well as an allocation planning process to determine that. as i said earlier, we have a very strong working relationship with the school district. we actually this year working with the school district to issue a parent survey to all the parents in our school district to ask them that very question of how many parents really want an afterschool program at that school site. based on that survey and based on that data we will figure out how to adjust our funding. >> i know kevin true it isn't here any more. supervisor campos raised concern about long-time community based afterschool program at everett and mission based communities sometimes coming from ethnic -- ethnic communities being eliminated from the program and to be replaced with maybe an outside entity that might have good academic programs on paper, but i'm just wondering how we
ensure that indigenous and community-based programs are part of the afterschool programs and we don't lose sight of that connection with the community. (applause) >> i'm wondering how we look at those kinds of factors as you evaluate programs high quality that are connected to communities that kids and youth are from. >> most definitely, we he definitely value making sure that we fund high-quality programs that reflect the student population, the needs of parents, the needs of the community. the big initiative, a wonderful partnership of the city and the nonprofit partner agency, we have to work together to make sure we get to the end goal making sure all the kids in that school or in that neighborhood have access to high-quality programs, but then also we'll be ready to learn and succeed in school and make
that successful transition into adulthood. we do not take reduction in funding nor transitions of nonprofit agencies from a particular funding stream lightly. we work very closely with our partners to ensure that we have a smooth transition if that has to happen. we worked very closely in this particular situation with the principal, with the teaching staff, with parents, with young people to help us select the right nonprofit agency to provide the services. that's happening right now on school site. there was a very thorough process that the principal took the teaching staff as well as parents and young people through to interview the applicants. we had six applicants for that particular school site. the principal and her team interviewed the six applicants. they actually went out and did site visits and in the end they sent -- they forwarded two applicants to dcyf to make a decision.
the agency that we ended up selecting actually is a long-term, long-standing agency that's in the mission and has been providing services in the mission for a number of years. >> okay, thank you. >> next speakers, i guess, would be michelle parker and todd davis. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is michelle parker and this is todd davis, we're co-founders of the san francisco parent political action committee. it takes a village to raise a child and we want to say thank you to all the people that have gotten us to this point now. the work of the extended learning collaborative, after school for all alliance for the past many years with support from dcyf and sf staff, commissioner [speaker not understood] for recognizing the existing inequity and prioritizing this issue by authoring new policy of the board of education that will
serve all students, to the board of education for unanimously passing a policy and to staff for working on the plans to make this happen. supervisor jane kim for authoring the board of supervisors resolution, supervisor farrell for recognizing the need to hold a hearing on this issue and therefore emphasizing the importance of ensuring that quality after school perhaps exist on every site for the families who want to use them. as we consider proposing new policy and amending existing policies that affect children and youth in san francisco we must consider what is in our children's best interest and this does. as an ortho in san francisco, parent p-a-c has made this our top policy priority this past year because we want to support policies that are focused on children and families that make it easier for our families to stay in san francisco. this rose to the top as an obvious issue to get behind because it affects every child and it also seemed to need that extra push to get it over the finish line. there is currently limited capacity for families to have
access to after school programs on their school site and [speaker not understood] not being able to plan on having children participate in afterschool programs cause many families to leave our public school and city. one more predictable a team to add to the list of uncertainty. >> may i ask a question, mr. chair? >> you may. >> what is the point of having the parent p-a-c? is this a political entity that has a clear political agenda? i'm trying to understand what this has to do with what we're talking about here. i think that this is an organization that doesn't necessarily represent a lot of the families that we're talking about. it is actually especially the families that we're talking about. so, i'm just trying to understand what the relevance of this presentation is. >> so, my response is that this is supervisor farrell's hearing and he has set up the speakers for this and i am just
respecting the list that he provided for me. >> i just, i just think that the kids and the families that are in the highest need when it come to afterschool programs are not really represented by this organization. so, i'm just trying to understand why they're here. >> sure. >> i mean, this is a political entity. it's a political action committee that has a clear specific political agenda. i think the point of a hearing should be to discuss, you know, how we address the needs of family irrespective of the political philosophy that -- >> i can answer that. the agenda of this organization is to do what's best for chill green and family in san francisco and that policy, if people who sit -- >> question through the chair. you know, if there is a presentation here, if it's a department of the city then they can present. otherwise, they can be a part of public comment. but it would be unfair to
provide a political organization a platform without providing the same platform for other political organizations. (applause) >> under the rules, they're a city agency where a government agency like the school district, they are allowed to present, but they are not either. so, i don't know how they can be presenting as part of a staff presentation. if they want to speak, they should speak during public comment. >> so, ms. parker, i think my colleague has a point here. and are you representing a view for all parents or is this a particularly -- a view of just the p-a-c? >> both -- >> it may be the same, but really, some organizations do come and present and they do a survey of the city and so forth. so, i guess my colleague's point is are you representing
parents in the total city or are you representing a particular group? >> well, i'm here as a representative of this organization. however, as an organization, we do believe that parents all want the same thing and that is the best chance of success for their children. and, so, we make an effort to focus on family friendly policy and people who will make that policy. so, but i am here to represent the organization. >> question for the city attorney. they're not a city agency, they're not a city department, they're not a school district department. is it appropriate for them to present during staff presentation or should they reserve their comments for public comment? >> so, do you have an answer? >> i'll need a moment to check on that. >> chair yee, can i just say that i definitely understand
supervisor campos's concerns because i know that general policies are to have department heads and staff. but i will shea michelle parker has been the former head of our city's parent-teacher association and i know with todd david and others that they've done their best to try to diversify their leadership within the parent p-a-c and then they also very active in other efforts to support funding across the city. but especially with a focus on equity as well, but i've appreciated that in their work, but i definitely understand what supervisor campos is saying in making the exception of one organization when there are parents of public schools and many other organizations or grassroots, parent groups, and communities of color that are also equally important. but i just wanted to say that michelle, michelle parker's leadership has been wonderful in the city but i understand what supervisor campos is saying. >> so, the question has been asked. we'll get an answer. i'm inclined to allow it only
because out of respect for the supervisor who was hosting the hearing. >> well, i appreciate that, but for the record i do think this is a violation of our policies. and it's not just that this is not a city agency, but this is a specifically political action committee that actually fund raises for the purpose of pushing a specific set of candidates and political agendas. i think it is different from allowing a 501(c) (3), coleman or anyone else from presenting. this is a political entity that is being given a platform by this body and i actually think that that is a violation of our rules. >> we'll just have to wait a moment.
so, i don't know how long our city attorney is going to take to get that answer. why don't we take public testimony at this point until he gets back with an answer, okay. otherwise we might be standing here for a while. is there any public comments for this item? if you have public comments, come on up for two minutes over here and state your name. okay. seeing none. hi, good afternoon, my name is valerie [speaker not understood]. i want to make a quick comment. i've a little concerned about the mathematics proposed for charging fees.
but i just want to do the math. if you propose to charge $800 per family for a copay for people who are not on free reduced, there's a lot of working families in san francisco. if you do the math, if they have two kids, that's $1600 a year. and although the working families are being taxed and, so, i think you need to reconsider that. i think that is an enormous amount to charge families who are already paying a lot of fees around a lot of other issues and you need to find the money elsewhere. afterschool programs should be free for all kids. it should be a right, not a privilege. thank you. (applause) yeah, just really quickly in terms of the ability of afterschool programs to be able
to, to be able to run effectively, i hear a lot of words like data driven, alignment, evaluation, best practices. these buzz words, buzz words do mean a lot in terms of helping to make sure that each and every child is provided an opportunity for afterschool programs, but just like valerie was saying, there's a lot of disconnects between the people that are making decisions about these afterschool programs and the people that are actually being affected by these services. so, i would just urge anybody on this committee, anybody dcyf, anybody in all these places to just really consider the disconnect that happens to be between the youth that need these services and the people making decisions for these services in terms of the money, in terms of these liaisons that we're talking about, in terms of these people that we're sending into these schools to make sure these needs assessments are being carried out. i just want to put the question to everybody. whose needs are we talking about? for how long are we talking about it then? and also whose interests are we
going to end up serving in the end? these afterschool programs are important. like valerie said, they should be free. they should not be a privilege for some people to take part in and not others. i just really wanted to say to keep in mind how disconnected some of these programs are from the actual needs of the students that we're trying to serve. thank you. >> thank you. between the of you, can you finish the presentation within the two-minute period? okay, go ahead. i'm more than happy to give public comment 2 minutes as opposed to a presentation. my name is todd david and i am the co-founder of the san francisco parent political action committee and this was our top priority to make sure, a top policy priority to ensure high-quality afterschool
programs for all families who desire on the school site. i just want to point out that $807 per year is about $90 per month. and that at alvarado elementary school where my child is there, i mean, it's i think $400 a month right now for afterschool programming. and there is a waiting list at that school. and, so, parents are forced to leave school -- leave work during the day and pick up their child and move them somewhere else. also i want to say i'm a parent at everett middle school and my child participates in the beacon. [speaker not understood] at everett middle school which is a long-time mission based community benefit organization. and, so, the decision, while -- i actually take a little bit of offense to what supervisor campos said. i'm a member of the pta and the
communication was not done perfectly. i don't know any communication that is done perfectly, but that decision was made and communicated, that was in the best interest of all the children of the effort. and to do the race [speaker not understood] that he just did to commit to say that one organization can represent families and another organization cannot i find offensive. so, i appreciate the time and we like -- and we think that parent p-a-c believes that this afterschool for all program is in the best interest of every child in san francisco. >> michelle, would you like to finish the two minutes? just for the record, i think they're talking about community involvement is not race baiting ~ and i take offense with that. and i think that any of the families that did not get the required information would have a problem with what mr. david just said. but the fact that he said it
reflects -- prove the very point i was making about this political organization in terms of who they represent and who they really care about. (applause) just to finish up a few of the things that i was saying earlier, and anecdotally we know a lot of families consider leaving the city because they don't have the certainty of having their kids participate in an on-site afterschool program because there are so many wait lists, because the cost of going to outside programs and also transportation issues that we've had to deal with in the district over the past. but we also know providing a high quality afterschool program on every site for every child who wants to participate -- [speaker not understood] it helps to build community and connectedness to school. [speaker not understood] rates for english learner and many more.
there are within the resolution that was passed at the school board, there are also some processes and systems that are really important to making this work and that's creating an online application system, having a sliding scale, payment system and bettering the support structures at school sites. it is important for us to collectively show our children and families that we want them to remain here and be successful and we need to collectively invest the resources necessary to make that happen. thank you. >> thank you very much. any other public comments on this item? hello, good afternoon. my name is [speaker not understood]. director with mission neighborhood centers and i just wanted to make a couple of comments. one, you know, i agree with what we shared earlier around really looking at the needs of us parents and families, looking at community-based afterschool programs and the uniqueness that they offer as we talk about, you know,
quality afterschool for all. and i also just wanted to also publicly feel offended the comments that were just made. they weren't talking about the mission beacon process right now. there were a lot of speakers here that can speak on how that process wasn't fair and if something we're going to talk about and another reason why we're looking for oversight in the children's fund. that's not the topic for this conversation -- of this agenda item so i just wanted to make that statement. >> okay. any other public comments? seeing none, public comments for this item is now closed. [gavel] >> is there -- well, let me make just a quick comment that having afterschool program in every school has been not only commissioner [speaker not understood] dream, but it's
something that i've dreamt about also since working in youth development in my -- in the early '70s, late '60s, early '70s. and then for my daughter who was 14 years old at the time and was on the youth commission, when she came home to me one day and said, you know, i want to take something on. i want to really try to push for this whole thing of having afterschool program to serve all our kids within the schools. unfortunately at 14 and 15 years ago as much as i try to encourage her, many of the adult decision makers kept on saying this isn't possible, it's not doable, this is not that, and hearing now today it's within reach of making this happen. so, i want to thank everybody involved that's been pushing this.
i'm very hopeful that we'll get there one day. so, any other comments? seeing none, this item is now closed. [gavel] >> thank you for your patience for the next few item. >> what action would you like taken on this? >> i'm sorry. is there a motion to file this item? >> so moved. >> okay, with no objection. [gavel] >> motion passes. again, i apologize for that, this item took a little bit longer than we thought. of course, i didn't apologize earlier that we started late because this chamber was being used by another committee that went over time. and i know it's getting late and we're going to try to move this as fast as we could. madam clerk, could you please call items number 2, 3 -- through 4. >> items number 3 and 4 are 4 charter amendment (first draft) to amend the charter, sections 16.123-2, 16.123-4, 16.123-5,
16.123-6, and 16.123-8, and repealing sections 16.123-7 and 16.123-10, to: 1) renew the public education enrichment fund and eliminate its expiration date; 2) change the allocation for universal preschool, overseen by the first five commission, to an allocation for universal early education, overseen by the office of early care and education, and create a citizen's advisory committee; 3) eliminate the city's ability to use in-kind services to satisfy its obligations to the fund; and 4) modify certain technical requirements for the fund and delete obsolete provisions, at an election to be held on november 4, 2014. -- charter amendment (first draft) to amend the charter, by adding section 16.126, to create a children and families council, which shall prepare and maintain a san francisco children and families plan for making the city more supportive of children and families, at an election to be held on november 4, 2014. >> thank you. i'm going to be joined by supervisors avalos, mar, and kim eventually will be in on this item. and what i'd like to do is have us have the supervisors make some comments if they choose to for this item first before we hear the speakers. so, what i'd like to do is i'll start it off. and i know most of the people in the chamber right now were probably at the rally this afternoon so i apologize somewhat that maybe i'm repeating myself. but i think things that i care about is worth repeating. so, like i was saying, it there
are a variety of initiatives that support public education. there are none more important than the children's fund and investment fund. both have successful initiatives and both are up for re-authorization this november. both initiatives direct the city to allocate funding to help children to see without raising any new taxes. the children's fund has resulted in increased services to children and youth such as early education and summer programs for children, to job training and creation for job training and job creation for youth. [speaker not understood] has allowed public schools to bring back school librarians so students can actually access resource he in their schools. we have improved the ratios of nurses to students, art and music is still available in our schools whereas many other school districts have totally abandoned this element of education. san francisco has one of the strongest early education programs in the nation.
many more 4 year olds have received quality preschool experience, an experience that would not have existed if it weren't for peace. these initiatives have been very positive. however, san francisco are always challenging themselves. however, san francisco are always challenging themselves. we ask ourselves, how can we improve? how can we provide for unmet needs? how can we make san francisco an attractive place for families and children to live? how can we align services and infrastructure for children and family? as we move forward with the re-authorization of the jane kim fund and peace, we will address these questions with a number of amendments to the charter. we are creating at the end of the day hopefully one solidifying ballot initiative that will provide common goals,
increased oversight, expand definition of eligible groups requesting services, address unmet needs by instigating efficiency and increased resources and extending the sunset date to occur 25 years from passage. many individuals and groups are working on these improvements and at times when they have different ideas to get there, but we are unified. i want to repeat, unified and one of the changes that make things better. major amendments include creation unifying body, our children -- our city, children and families council that will create shared goals and outcomes
[speaker not understood] and vision. the plan would address both services as well as infrastructure development for children and families. keep in mind that in san francisco, san francisco has a children's population of 13.4%, the lowest in the nation. we need to create a city plan that will reverse this trend. besides the creation of our city -- our city family and children's council that will hold a city school district and other services providers accountable to our goals, we will need a creation of a new citizens have iery committee for an office of ace and [speaker not understood] existing [speaker not understood]. we will also ask voters to support increased spending for children sever says that would eventually grow by 33%. more than that, what is being allocated to date in our children's fund. through a ramping up process. this increase will help increase some of the unmet -- oops, address some of the unmet
need for the city's children services. at the same time we do not want to wait for a new service allocation plan to receive the 33% increase. we are asking that we fund the ramp up over a period allowing additional funds for the most obvious and unmet needs today, not in the future, and to have organizations grow stronger infrastructures. supervisor kim will ask for amendments that will increase the actual dollars to the peace and you'll hear more about it when she speaks. peace allocates one-third of its funds for early education. we will make this fund more flexible in regards to making it available to children 0 to 5, not just 4 year olds. keeping the priority to preschoolers that are 4 years of age. we also -- we will also be asking oc offices ace to administer the funding for better coordination